Crosswords1 min ago
Justin Trudeau Gun Ban
I see Trudeau is banning gun ownership in Canada.Will the gun ban be like Britains ,where criminals,drug dealers and gang members are all exempt from the ban?
Answers
As interesting as those stats are Corby, it doesn't indicate that the availability of guns increases the murder rate*. It just shows that guns are the weapon of choice for American murderers. *which I'm sure it does.
11:45 Sat 02nd May 2020
ynnafymmi
Handguns are not banned in the UK:
https:/
But is your argument that criminals can get their hand on pistols, so there's not point in banning them?
Are you //sure// that's a valid argument?
Handguns are not banned in the UK:
https:/
But is your argument that criminals can get their hand on pistols, so there's not point in banning them?
Are you //sure// that's a valid argument?
sp1814 Best read you link
"Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 with the exception of Northern Ireland. "
So most of the UK has a ban on hand guns -why NI should decide not to beats me.....
"Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 with the exception of Northern Ireland. "
So most of the UK has a ban on hand guns -why NI should decide not to beats me.....
AuntyPollyGrey
Also from Wiki
The 1997 law did not ban pistols as such and was drafted in terms of small firearms.
British law defines a "pistol" as a firearm with a barrel shorter than 30 cm or a total length of less than 60 cm (this definition encompasses revolvers, revolving pistols). Only muzzle-loading pistols—including muzzle-loading revolvers—are permitted.
But I'm getting a bit sidetracked.
My point is - just because criminals can get their hands on a banned item, doesn't negate the need for it to be banned.
And - Canada is banning assault weapons.
Pretty sensible.
Also from Wiki
The 1997 law did not ban pistols as such and was drafted in terms of small firearms.
British law defines a "pistol" as a firearm with a barrel shorter than 30 cm or a total length of less than 60 cm (this definition encompasses revolvers, revolving pistols). Only muzzle-loading pistols—including muzzle-loading revolvers—are permitted.
But I'm getting a bit sidetracked.
My point is - just because criminals can get their hands on a banned item, doesn't negate the need for it to be banned.
And - Canada is banning assault weapons.
Pretty sensible.
//And - Canada is banning assault weapons.
Pretty sensible. //
I agree. Pity the U.S. anti firearms lobby aren't so smart.
Cap and ball type hand guns and muzzle loaders are permitted on a Firearms certificate in the UK. Cartridge loading weapons are not except for military and law enforcement.
http://
Trudeau has not banned assault weapons yet; he has banned the sale, import and use of them with a 2 year 'amnesty' in which to organise a buy back scheme. It is possible that current owners may be allowed to apply to keep them under permit.
Too many Canadians in rural situations depend on firearms on a daily basis to make an outright ban on gun ownership workable.
Too many Canadians in rural situations depend on firearms on a daily basis to make an outright ban on gun ownership workable.
Mister Trudeau's reasoning behind banning the sale of these weapons cannot be gainsaid - they are designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest possible time, there is no reason or justification for any private citizen to own such a weapon.
To address the OP - criminals, drug dealers and so on are not 'exempt from the ban' at all - they simply circumvent it, as criminals will do with any law that impedes their criminal activities.
The point is, you have to have legislation in order to prosecute offenders as and when they are brought to court - including the criminal elements you mention - and that is why the law is bring enacted.
To address the OP - criminals, drug dealers and so on are not 'exempt from the ban' at all - they simply circumvent it, as criminals will do with any law that impedes their criminal activities.
The point is, you have to have legislation in order to prosecute offenders as and when they are brought to court - including the criminal elements you mention - and that is why the law is bring enacted.
And, Shoota, one final viewpoint: https:/
A Hughes - 'Mister Trudeau's reasoning behind banning the sale of these weapons cannot be gainsaid - they are designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest possible time'
Yes it can be gainsaid - had you watched the 2nd link I posted you would have learnt that Canadians are already restricted by law to possessing magazines that hold only 5 rounds - the typical capacity of a bolt action hunting rifle. Also the rifles themselves are restricted to semi-automatic action only, in other words they can only fire one shot per pull of the trigger. The only similarity they share with the military versions (AR15 = M 16 in USA) is purely a visual one. Therefore your contention that 'they are designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest possible time,' may be true of the military version but not the civilian variant.
Canada already has sufficient laws to deal with any criminals who may get their hands on weapons unlawfully and this particular one is no more than an ill thought out, opportunistic sop to his electorate.
Further proof of that comes from Sanmacs second link - 'Public Safety Minister Bill Blair breezily declared that the “banned” rifles are not used for hunting, shortly before Justice Minister David Lametti announced that there would be exemptions from the ban for some Indigenous communities, where the rifles are needed for … hunting.'
Yes it can be gainsaid - had you watched the 2nd link I posted you would have learnt that Canadians are already restricted by law to possessing magazines that hold only 5 rounds - the typical capacity of a bolt action hunting rifle. Also the rifles themselves are restricted to semi-automatic action only, in other words they can only fire one shot per pull of the trigger. The only similarity they share with the military versions (AR15 = M 16 in USA) is purely a visual one. Therefore your contention that 'they are designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest possible time,' may be true of the military version but not the civilian variant.
Canada already has sufficient laws to deal with any criminals who may get their hands on weapons unlawfully and this particular one is no more than an ill thought out, opportunistic sop to his electorate.
Further proof of that comes from Sanmacs second link - 'Public Safety Minister Bill Blair breezily declared that the “banned” rifles are not used for hunting, shortly before Justice Minister David Lametti announced that there would be exemptions from the ban for some Indigenous communities, where the rifles are needed for … hunting.'
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.